University of South Carolina University of South Carolina

Scholar Commons Scholar Commons

Theses and Dissertations

2018

Fandom In Politics: Scale Development And Validation Fandom In Politics: Scale Development And Validation

Won-Ki Moon University of South Carolina

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd

Part of the Journalism Studies Commons, and the Mass Communication Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Moon, W.(2018). Fandom In Politics: Scale Development And Validation. (Master's thesis). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4879

This Open Access Thesis is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact digres@mailbox.sc.edu.

FANDOM IN POLITICS: SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

by

Won-Ki Moon

Bachelor of Arts

Incheon National University, 2013

Master of Arts

Incheon National University, 2015

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Master of Arts in

Journalism and Mass Communications

College of Information and Communications

University of South Carolina

2018

Accepted by:

S. Mo Jang, Director of Thesis

Brooke McKeever, Reader

Robert McKeever, Reader

Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

ii

© Copyright by Won-Ki Moon, 2018

All Rights Reserved.

iii

ABSTRACT

Despite the importance of fandom in politics to understanding individuals’

political behaviors, reliable scales measuring political fandom are lacking. To fill this

gap, the present study constructs and validates a new scale for political fandom. First, by

reforming existed questions and making new questions, the author derived 42 questions

belonging to seven dimensions as an initial item pool based on conceptualization.

Second, to refine and develop the scale, the researcher conducted exploratory factor

analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. According to the result of the studies, the final

factor model of political fandom retained 25 questions and seven dimensions. In addition,

the model of political fandom had acceptable inter-item reliability and validity. The study

contributes to an understanding of political behaviors and perceptions that are not fully

explained by concepts of political ideology and partisanship.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1

Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................3

Chapter 3 Scale Development for Political Fandom and Validation .................................10

Chapter 4 Discussion and Implications..............................................................................37

References ..........................................................................................................................45

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire ...................................................................................51

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Sample description ............................................................................................23

Table 3.2 Selected politicians as participants favorite .......................................................25

Table 3.3 Initial item pool ..................................................................................................26

Table 3.4 Exploratory factor analysis of political fandom (seven-factor structure) ...................28

Table 3.5 Statics for exploratory factor analysis ....................................................................31

Table 3.6 Confirmatory factor analysis results .......................................................................32

Table 3.7 The modified factor model of political fandom .......................................................33

Table 3.8 The discriminant validity index summary for the construct ......................................35

Table 3.9 Correlations of political fandom and other variables................................................36

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Scale development process ...............................................................................21

Figure 3.2 The second-order measurement model .............................................................22

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Recent 2016 presidential elections provided an interesting phenomenon, fandom

of politicians that illustrated people’s perceptions of politicians. In general, fandom

represents a group of numerous people (organized or not) who participate in various

activities to consume the content related to specific figures or organizations, such as

celebrities or sports teams (Wilson, 2011). Previous research has concluded that parts of

the public communicate about elections and engage in politics in the same way as sports

and entertainment fans because some people seek fun through political support (Erikson,

2008). These fan-type people are interested in the private lives of politicians beyond what

is considered conventional political support. For instance, certain politicians’ fans buy

goods related to those politicians, make products such as fan fiction—a sort of fiction

novel about fan objects (Hill, 2016, July 2)—and even create fan tribute songs (Miller &

De Haes, 2015, June 10). Some Barack Obama admirers are still captivated by him—

even now that his presidency is over (Coleman, 2017, June 7).

Not only in the United States, the tendency of fandomization of political

supporters is happening in many democratic countries including South Korea and Canada

(Bae, 2017, May 21; Lindzon, 2017, July 1). In South Korea, for example, enthusiastic

supporters of the president Jae-in Moon have shown that interesting phenomena. They

have made online fan community for the president or collected the souvenirs related to

the president to express their affection for him (Morelli, 2018, March 23). Both in the US

2

and in South Korea, political fans help the government promote new policies or manage

public relations. However, many political experts point out lack of understanding of

political fans’ activities is the problem because blind support of ardent suppoters could be

harm to democracy (Koo, 2017, June 21; Hafner, J. (2018, May 2).

To reflect these interest of society, many studies have focused on fandom

phenomena through qualitative research methods in the cultural context (Dean, 2017).

Based on these studies, the activities of fans, as members of a highly engaged public in

politics, should be considered as significant influencers in political communications and

behaviors of the public as a whole (Erikson, 2008). However, despite the theoretical

importance and thriving nature of political fandom in the real world, few scholarly

attempts have been made to understand this concept in political communication. Thus,

this study conceptualized and developed the scale for political fandom to help further

investigations into citizens’ perceptions and behaviors as related to the political fandom.

The current study aims to propose a scale of political fandom through several

factor analyses and validity assessments. Based on sports and culture studies, the present

study explores how to measure and operationalize the concept of fandom through the

survey. The suggested factor model of political fandom can be an antecedent factor

leading to perceptions, activities, and communication regarding politics as well as

politicians. The results of this study can contribute to the understanding of fandom in

politics and provide guidelines for future research that applies quantitative methods to the

examination of political fandom.

3

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REIVEW

2.1 FANDOM IN POLITICS

The development of communication technology and the change of political

perceptions have brought the altered relationship between politicians and voters (Wilson,

2011). The importance of the individual politician has increased in the public’s decision

making and political behaviors (Takens, Kleinnijenhuis, Van Hoof, & Van Atteveldt,

2015). Political communication through social media becomes softer and more individual

(Wilson, 2011). Individual citizens can meet the individual politician easily online

(Sunstein, 2018). The public’s tendency to focus on politicians as individuals have

increased based on the level of online communication with politicians on social media

(Erikson, 2008). Social media has blurred the line between the domain of politics and

culture (Lee, 2013).

Van Zoonen (2004) cited the post-modern society has allowed the emergence of

new types of political perceptions and behaviors. Different from society in the 20th

century, which completely separated areas of politics and culture based on dignity in

politics, current society allowed to break the border between the public sphere and private

sphere (Wolin, 2016). In this view, individuals’ motivation behind political support or

participation needs to be rethought because not only political-public interest can play a

role in individuals’ political participation, but personal motivations can be an important

factor of individuals’ political participation (Inglehart, 2015). In other words, individuals

4

can support politicians to achieve their enjoyment, fulfillment, or affections as well as to

obtain the opportunity of participating in political decision making democratically for

society as a whole (Inglehart, 2000).

The altered views of political environments help to apprehend the phenomenon

that the public regards politicians as a type of celebrity by focusing on the sensational

aspects of politicians’ lives and considering individual politicians’ character traits

(Parikh, 2012). The literature suggests that fandom, as seen in relation to celebrities, has

also appeared in relation to politicians (Sandvoss, 2012). For instance, the fandom

surrounding South Korean President Jae-in Moon, has become very large in online

communities. Groups of the president’s fans produce, or purchase products related to the

president. In addition, they make memes about the president expressing their love and

support for him (Bae, 2017, May 21). In this case, based on individual affections, fans

participate in fandom behaviors for their politicians. Although these fans attempt to

support their admired politician’s political campaigns, this is not their only goal. Fans

also attain enjoyment or emotional satisfaction from the personal relationships that they

form with the politicians (Van Zoonen, 2004). These new types of political support and

the underlying psychological processes are difficult to explain using the concepts of

affiliation and partisanship (Wilson, 2011). This study proposes the concept of fandom to

apply to the understanding of these particular types of behaviors and affections of the

public.

Fandom indicates particular emotions and behaviors based on the relationship

between the fan and an object of fandom. In cultural studies, fandom is “regular,

emotionally involved consumption of a given popular narrative or text” (Sandvoss, 2005,

5

p. 8). Fandom includes both aspects of affection and activities in terms of the individual

and the community levels (Dean, 2017) and can be used to explain the enthusiastic

behaviors or emotions of individuals by applying an association between a fan and a fan

object (Stevens, 2010). Because fandom helps to explain consumption related to an object

of fandom, it is also a very important concept in sports studies (Reysen & Branscombe,

2010). The concept exercises significant influence on the market and certain segments of

the public, so fans are important stakeholders and form advocacy groups in popular

culture and sports (Stevens, 2010; Sutton, McDonald, Milne, & Cimperman, 1997). In

political communication, fandom can provide an understanding of particular supporters’

behaviors, such as political product purchasing and political meme sharing, and can

further be applied to examining members of the public, regardless of partisan or political

ideologies.

2.2 PREVIOUS POLITICAL FANDOM STUDIES

The relationship between individual politicians and individual citizens was

discussed in numerous previous studies, categorizing it into two aspects of political

fandom, celebrity politicians and politicizing fandom, depending on whether a researcher

focused more on politicians or fans (Dean, 2017). Researchers of celebrity politicians

have pointed out that some politicians’ act as celebrities in the media to gain more

popularity (Street, 2004). These studies consider that the emergence of mass media was

the starting point of celebrity politicians (Street, 2012). Celebrity politicians have

attempted to show themselves as particular figures they want people to see because they

realized the importance of enthusiastic supporters who concentrate more on their specific

images, appearances, or backgrounds than on policies or political ideologies (Dimitrova

6

& Bystrom, 2013).

The most famous example of a celebrity politician is President Kennedy and his

political campaign that benefited from televised debates (Livingstone & Lunt, 2002). In

the media, Kennedy’s image on screen is considered to have led him to become the

president (Druckman, 2003). Like pop stars or movie actors, after the 1960s, more

politicians started to manage their public images as well as visual images (Sandvoss,

2004). Changes in the media environment and political campaigns have influenced the

supporters of politicians. Political supporters have become more similar to fans of

celebrities (Van Zoonen, 2004).

To date, researchers have paid more attention to the changed relationship between

politicians and supporters because the understanding of the relationship can be a hint to

comprehending underlying individual supporters’ psychological processes of political

behaviors including enthusiastic support (Dean, 2017). After the 2000s, authors of several

studies combined the structure of political supporters with fans of popular culture (Van

Zoonen, 2004). Many political supporters share their ideas regarding the celebrity

politicians and even support politicians online by producing and consuming fan products

(Sandvoss, 2004). These supporters enjoy expressing their affection for the celebrity

politicians in public (Sandvoss, 2012). Because these types of political activities are very

similar to the activities of fans of popular culture, scholars consider this changed

relationship between politicians and supporters as the association between fans and an

object of fandom (Dean, 2017).

2.3 FANDOM AND PARTISANSHIP

Concepts of partisanship, ideology, and affiliation provide variable explanations

7

of citizen’s perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors toward politics and political information;

fandom cannot be elaborated upon in a way that is fully separate from these concepts. As

a strong factor, partisanship can have a specific influence on citizen’s rational thinking

and information-gathering process, such as encouraging biased communicative action,

which can restrict healthy skepticism in politics (Song & Boomgaarden, 2017). In

general, partisanship is based on affiliation to a particular party (Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes,

2012). As a variable to measure someone’s social identity, political partisanship provides

crucial insight for researchers and can be seen as a variable to explain differences in the

information-gathering process and political behavior among a variety of citizen (Song &

Boomgaarden, 2017). High affiliation with a party or a specific political group produces

political behaviors such as enthusiastic support for or antagonism toward parties or

groups (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008). With regard to the fact that partisanship generally

belongs to political organizations or parties, it becomes difficult to explain the

relationship between individual politicians and supporters in terms of partisanship

(Valenzuela, Correa, & Gil de Zúñiga, 2017).

The concept of partisanship was applied to an explanation of why political

supporters have different levels of initiative or involvement in political communication

behaviors, including the information-gathering process (Weeks, 2015). Literature

suggests that partisans who are involved in politics and have an affiliation with a specific

party exhibit distinctive information-seeking and sharing behaviors based on their closed

networks (e.g., filter bubble) and biased media use (Zhu, Skoric, & Shen, 2017). Healthy

political communication, such as political discussion in the public sphere, is worth noting

because it allows society to improve democracy and maintain itself (Schiffer, 2017).

8

Although fandom seems to be similar to partisanship and shares some conceptual

domains with it, fandom can also be distinguished from partisanship (De Backer, 2012;

Pearson, 2010) because of above distinctive characteristics. First, fandom is an

independent factor of the political behaviors from partisanship. Because affiliation of fans

belongs to individual politicians, fans have comparatively less interest in political

ideology or parties’ common goals regarding policy than partisans (Parikh, 2012). Even

some fans do not think it is necessary to join a party of their fan object, because they can

participate in political activities based on the fandom community not traditional political

supports (Dean, 2017). These tendencies show that the orthogonal relationship between

fandom and partisanship. Fans focus on the individual-level issue of politicians rather

than party or political ideology. Fans love their politicians based on the multiple traits of

those politicians, such as character, speech style, appearance, or individual background,

rather than considering their political ideology or policies only (Canovan, 1999). Second,

fans deify their politicians. Many political fans worship their politicians in the same way

as fans idolize their fan objects such as pop-stars or sports players (McCutcheon, Lange,

& Houran, 2002). In some cases, fandom represents blind support (Dwyer, Mudrick,

Greenhalgh, LeCrom, & Drayer, 2015). For instance, the literature reports that consumers

who are fans of celebrities ignore the rule of rational choice in terms of economics when

purchasing products or services related to the celebrities they follow (De Backer, 2012;

Kim & Kim, 2017). Third, productivity and consumption, which are related to politicians,

are central activities of fans (Lee, Kim, Chu, & Seo, 2013). Fans create content relevant

to fan objects because fans cannot build a direct relationship with politicians (Dean,

2017). Whereas partisans consider party activities—voting or participating political

9

convention—to be the center of their political participation, fans focus on unconventional

political activities regardless of the political party. Fourth, although fans do not tend to

separate their fan group from nonfans, an exclusive boundary between fandom and

nonfans is maintained (Fiske, 1992). Participating in the fans’ communication is often

difficult for nonfans (Highfield, Harrington, & Bruns, 2013) because this information

sharing requires an understanding of the fan object and fandom groups themselves to take

part in the conversation (Hunt, 2003).

2.4 FOCUS OF PRESENT STUDY

This study’s main purpose is to determine the best measurement of political

fandom, particularly as it relates to understandings of fans perceptions of and behaviors

for politicians. The first goal of the study is to develop the scale of political fandom on

previous studies and theories and assess internal content validity through factor analysis.

The researcher sought to build a unique approach on the conceptualizations of fandom in

politics. Fandom was studied by numerous studies in sports, culture, and entertainments

fields with qualitative and quantitative approaches. Some sociology, political science and

political communication studies also looked into phenomena related to fans and fandom

of politicians. In this view, this study attempts to understand fandom in politics from

various academic views to improve the measurement for political fandom.

To test the scale’s reliability and validity, the study attempt to determine the

reliability of the political fandom scale across two domestic samples. Even though the

scale of political fandom was produced based on theoretically driven measurement

construct, this study conducted several statistical confirmations to modify and improve

the model through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.

10

CHAPTER 3

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR POLITICAL FANDOM

AND VALIDATION

3.1 OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURES

This study started by reviewing previous fandom research (Brough & Shresthova,

2011; Dean, 2017; Erikson, 2008; Sandvoss, 2012; Van Zoonen, 2004) to develop

measures for political fandom. Second, the researcher generated an initial item pool

through conceptualization of political fandom based on the literature. To find several

variables that are used to measure fandom for sports and celebrities, the researcher

reviewed fandom studies regarding sports and entertainment. Authors of published

fandom-in-politics studies also suggested key concepts for structuring dimensions of

fandom. Third, the generated item pool was purified through exploratory factor analysis

and reliability testing. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the

validity of determined items. Confirmatory factor analysis also allowed testing of the

scale dimensionality of the political fandom scale. Figure 3.1 shows the several steps to

the development and preliminary validation of political fandom.

3.2 ITEM POOL DEVELOPMENT

3.2.1 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF POLITICAL FANDOM

The author began to collect and summarize the findings of previous studies in

order to determine dimensions of political fandom by understanding theoretical concepts

of fandom in various fields including sports, entertainment, culture, and politics. Based

11

on a review of literature, the measurement model of political fandom was hypothesized.

The construct of political fandom includes seven dimensions, theories regarding fans’

perceptions and behaviors such as worship, self-awareness as a fan, identification,

loyalty, playing, investment, and fan community engagement.

Some authors of published studies proposed diverse measurements of

perceptional factors (worship, self-awareness as a fan, identification, and loyalty).

Questions on fans’ perceptions of politicians were developed from previous research.

However, it was hard to find discussions on the three dimensions of political fandom

(playing, investment, and fan-community engagement) by authors who used quantitative

research that includes their approach to developing the measurement for the concept of

political fandom. Thus, in the current study, the researcher developed some original

questions to measure behaviors by fans of politicians based on existed fandom theories

and focus group interviews with politicians’ fans in literature.

In culture and sports-management studies, fandom generally encompasses

emotions and behaviors of the public. Politicizing fandom also includes these two

aspects: affection and activities (Dean, 2017). Thus, this study considers fan affection and

fan activities as two entities of fandom.

Based on previous studies, this study built four dimensions of political fandom,

namely Self-awareness as a fan (Wann, 2002), worship (Maltby, Day, McCutcheon,

Houran, & Ashe, 2006; McCutcheon et al., 2002), identification (Lemert, Wanta, & Lee,

1999), and loyalty (Keaton & Gearhart, 2014). Self-awareness as a fan is a self-evaluation

of the person who have the relationship with the politician. It can be applied to measure

the individual’s tendency of emotions of politicians that individuals’ perceived affections

12

of the relationship between themselves and politicians (Wann, 2002). This dimension

includes fans’ self-evaluation of relationship with celebrity politician (Wann, 2006).

Worship is a psychological obsession for a celebrity in an attempt to establish an

identity and a sense of fulfillment (McCutcheon et al., 2002). In other words, worship is a

kind of para-social relationship with the adoration of celebrities as if they were idols or

role models (Maltby et al., 2006). Fans become virtually obsessed with one or more

celebrities because of the tendency of individuals to compromise their identity structure

(McCutcheon et al., 2002).

With respect to identification, fans tend to identify themselves with the fan object

(Al Ganideh & Good, 2015). Fans are highly engaged in an object of fandom

emotionally. Fans accept evaluation, criticize, or praise to the politician as theirs (Stever,

2009). Identification is induced by individuals’ high engagement (Branscombe & Wann,

1991).

Loyalty means that fans form a consistent relationship with a fan object in terms

of attitude or behavior (Biscaia, Correia, Rosado, Ross, & Maroco, 2013). As

identification with royalty suggests, fans are highly involved with an object of fandom

(Morin, Ivory, & Tubbs, 2012). However, loyalty requires fans to have more behavioral

and active engagement with a celebrity politician (Kim & Kim, 2017). Loyal fans tend to

serve a politician as much as they can in their daily lives (Biscaia et al., 2013). They do

not worry about showing their allegiance to others (Funk & Jeffrey, 2006).

There are three other dimensions related to behaviors of fans: playing (Wilson,

2011), investment (Dean, 2017), and engagement in fan-communities. Playing refers to

making and sharing content relevant to the fan object (Parikh, 2012). This fan creativity

13

is a core activity of fans that contains fan products, fan fiction, and memes (Dean, 2017).

Fans tend to pursue enjoyment by creating and sharing the content related to their object

of fandom (Stever, 2009). Playing can be regarded as a new type of political activities of

fans (Gladden, 2001).

Fans have a desire to purchase and use products related to an object of fandom

(Stevens, 2010). They attempt to disclose their affection of the fan object through their

consumption of fan object-related products (Dean, 2017). This consumption is one of the

important ways fans of a celebrity politician show their affection and endorsement of the

politician (Dean, 2017). In the construct of political fandom, this political consumption is

called investment.

Fans usually show their support of a celebrity politician on the Internet with other

fans (Wakefield & Bennett, 2017). Fan community engagement includes behavioral

aspects related to a fandom community and fans’ perceptions of their fandom community

(Van Zoonen, 2004). The structures of fan communities leads to collectivistic

participation in political activities (Kim & Won, 2002). Thus, engagement in fan

communities should be considered one of seven dimensions of political fandom (Dean,

2017).

Consequently, the construct definition of political fandom is composed of seven

dimensions based on the result of conceptualization: worship, identification, loyalty, self-

awareness as a fan, investment in a celebrity politician, playing with fan-relevant political

content, and engagement in fan community.

3.2.2 ITEM GENERATION

Based on a review of fandom and political communication literature, the

14

researcher generated an initial item pool of political fandom. The constructed definition

of fandom is measured by seven dimensions in this item pool.

3.2.3 ITEM REFINEMENT

To test internal consistency among the initial question items, an online survey was

conducted. All participants were recruited by Amazon’s MTurk, which provides online

survey program tools for researchers. Some critiques cast doubt on MTurk samples being

representative of the U.S. population. However, in previous studies that used MTurk

samples, demographic analysis demonstrated that the samples have no serious issues

reflecting the U.S. population (see Table 3.1). A total of 211 participants were recruited

for exploratory factor analysis, but 31 participants were excluded who did not complete

the questionnaire or chose the wrong answer for an attention-check question. 180

participants were retained after data cleaning.

Because individuals’ preferred politicians vary, the researcher asked for the

participants’ favorite politicians by providing a list of 30 famous politicians in U.S.

history after 2000, such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and

Donald Trump (See Table 3.2). This survey also contained an open-ended question for

participants who could not find their favorite politicians on the list. Based on the answer

to the question “finding your favorite politician,” the survey forms were automatically

customized by using the function of the Qualtrics survey form. To be specific, the first

question asking, ‘who your favorite politician is’ was shown when participants start to

take a survey. Participants can pick a politician in options of the question or put the name

of politician if there are no name of their favorite politician. After a participant select a

particular politician, the survey questions were automatically modified for the participant

15

by using the name of politician. This customized survey form helped to make participants

can focus on answering the survey regarding their favorite politician.

The initial item pool of political fandom included 35 items categorized by seven

dimensions based on the literature. The author adopted the construct items from previous

sports and entertainment fandom studies, with some modification to accommodate this

study’s political context. The four dimensions, “self-awareness as a fan” (Gladden, 2001;

Wann, 2002; 2006), “loyalty” (Biscaia et al., 2013; Kim & Kim, 2017), “worship”

(McCutcheon, Lange, & Houran, 2002), and “identification” (Keaton & Gearhart, 2014;

Kim & Kim, 2017), originated from the literature. Qualitative political fandom studies

that used individual interviews (Sandvoss, 2012) or textual analysis (Erikson, 2008)

provided sufficient ideas about fans’ distinctive behaviors. The researcher proposes three

dimensions of political fandom extracted from these published articles: the investment

(Van Zoonen, 2004), playing (Wilson, 2011), and collectivistic participation in fan

communities (Dean, 2017).

Each dimension contains several items using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from

1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items are “I obsessed by detailed of

<politician name>’s life (Worship),” “I consider that the success of <politician name> is

my success (Identification),” and “I would be willing to purchase and use <politician

name>’s goods, such as badges, t-shirts, cups, flags, or caps” (See Table 3.3).

The author used factor analysis with principal axis factoring and promax rotation

to examine the seven-factor structure because of the correlation expected among factors

of political fandom. The researcher used the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin test and the Bartlett test

to evaluate sampling adequacy and sphericity of data. According to the KMO level (.929)

16

and the result of the Bartlett test (approximate chi-square = 4129.226, df = 378,

significance < .001), the data was considered appropriate for factor analysis (Kaiser &

Rice, 1974).

Seven question items from the original 35 were eliminated that had a loading

factor lower than 0.4, as shown in Table 3.5. No items had communality lower than 0.4

after rounding. However, the factor analysis demonstrated that the seven dimensions of

factor analysis corresponded to the results of conceptualization (i.e., worship, self-

awareness as a fan, identification, loyalty, investment, playing, and fan community

engagement). Reliability tests demonstrated that seven dimensions of fandom are

reliable; the Cronbach’s alphas were .928, .922, .856, .860, .714, and .927, respectively

(See Table 3.4).

As a result of factor analysis, the factor model of political communication

corresponded to the construct of political fandom made from a review of the literature. In

addition, all seven factors had sufficient internal consistencies after dropping several

scale items. Thus, this study confirmed that the factor structure reflect the theoretical

basis of the scale and the political fandom scale was internally consistent according to

Cronbach’s alpha values.

3.3 LATENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS AND VALIDITY ASSESSMENT

The concept of fandom can reflect the public’s perceptions of individual

politicians and particular behaviors by focusing on the relationship between fans and

politicians. Based on the literature, including quantitative studies of sports and

entertainment fandoms and qualitative studies of political fandom, this study proposes

that the construct of political fandom is a hierarchical and multidimensional construct.

17

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to exam the possibility of latent structure

and test the validity of the political fandom variable. The present study accepted the

suggested second-order factor model through comparison of several competing models

by performing several confirmatory factor analyses. Given the theoretical grounds and

consideration of the model fits (Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson, 2010), the present

study included the seven-factor modified model as the final measurement of political

fandom (See Table 3.6).

The seven-factor model had an acceptable overall fit (2 = 705.878, df = 265, p <

.001; RMSEA = .069, 90% confidence interval [CI] = [.062, .075]; CFI = .935; TLI =

.927; and SRMR = .050). In the final model, shown in Figure 3.2, some question items

were eliminated based on model modification indices (i.e., WO3, LO1, and FE 5). This

final model reveals that the factor structure of political fandom has 25 emotional,

perceptional, and behavioral indicators (i.e., obsession with politician, self-awareness as a

fan of the politician, investment in politician, and community engagement) that belong to

seven factors (See Table 3.7). Based on the set’s final model, several validity and

reliability tests were run to examine the discriminant validity of the construct of political

fandom. According to the examinations’ results, each factor had sufficient validity and

reliability. Table 3.8 reports the tests’ results.

The current study applied two factor analyses (exploratory factor analysis and

confirmatory factor analysis) using two samples. In summary, the confirmatory factor

analyses showed that the factor model of political fandom consisted of seven distinct but

related dimensions that reflect individuals’ diverse political perceptions and behaviors.

Seven dimensions of the final model corresponded to seven dimensions belonging to the

18

factor model suggested by the result of exploratory factor analysis. Therefore, H2b and

H2c were also supported (H2b. The political fandom scale will show similar factor

structure across samples; H2c. Data from different samples will fit the hypothesized

model, as shown by structural equation modeling).

3.4 RELATIONS OF POLITICAL FANDOM AND INDIVIDUALS’ POLITICAL

CHARACTERISTIC

According to literature, political fandom is independent of political partisanship

or ideology. In other words, political fandom possibility exists in every relation between

individuals and politicians regardless of individuals’ political ideology or partisanship.

The result of correlation analysis reveals the association of political fandom and other

variables used to measure individuals’ political perceptions.

In survey 2, the author asked participants about their partisanship (Variables

coded so higher scores denote Republican partisanship, 1=Strong Republican, 7=Strong

Democrat, M=4.35, SD=1.87), self-reported political ideology (1=Strong Republican,

7=Strong Democrat, M=4.47, SD=1.86), evaluated political ideology (M=3.67, SD=1.07,

Cronbach’s alpha=.810), political efficacy (M=5.15, SD=1.13, Cronbach’s alpha=.821),

and political fandom (M=4.02, SD=1.20, Cronbach’s alpha=.955) as well. Partisanship

and self-reported political ideology were measured by single self-reported item using a 7-

point Likert scale. To measure evaluated political ideology and political efficacy, the

researcher applied measurements that used by previous studies (ANES, 2016; Jang &

Kim, 2018). These 7-point Likert scales included questions as “Do you a favor, oppose,

or neither favor nor oppose the U.S. government paying for all necessary medical care for

all Americans (Ideology),” “I think I am better informed about politics and government

19

that most people (Efficacy).” The survey also included some questions to estimate for

individuals’ perceptions of the politician as the celebrity (M=3.50, SD=1.80, Cronbach’s

alpha=.897). The sample question of the 7-point Likert scale is “sometimes I think

<politician name> is look like one of the celebrities such as pop-star or actors.” This

variable was made based on the theory of celebrity politician (Street, 2014). Participants

put their age (M=37.41, SD=12.28), family income, and region (1=Rural and 3=urban,

M=1.84, SD=0.71) in the end part of survey.

To reveal the relationship among political fandom, intensity of ideology, and

partisanship of participants, measures for partisanship and ideology are merged.

Partisanship and self-reported ideology were recalculated from 7-point Likert scales to 4-

point Likert scales. For example, score 7 is recorded as 4. The researcher converted other

scores likewise (6→3, 5→2, 4→1, 3→2, 2→3, and 1→4). Evaluated ideology was

reconstructed from 5-point Likert scales to 3-point Likert scales (5→3, 4→2, and 3→1).

The result of correlation analysis showed that the positive association among

political fandom, perceptions of political as celebrities, and political efficacy (see Table

3.9). It means that individuals who had more fandom characteristic had higher political

efficacy than people who were evaluated as having low engagement with political

fandom. In addition, enthusiastic fans have a tendency to think politicians are similar to

celebrities or consider political support is the same with support sports team. Political

fandom had no statistically significant correlations with partisanship and political

ideology. Not surprisingly, partisanship corresponds with the political ideology of

participants (liberal individuals support Democratic party more than Republican party).

In this study, the researcher recalculated scores of scales for political ideology and

20

partisanship to measure participants’ levels of ideology and partisanship. As a result of

the correlation analysis, political fandom has a positive relationship with intensity of

ideology, while political ideologies (both self-reported and evaluated ideology)

themselves have no significant relationships with political fandom. This result means that

participants who have strong partisans are likely to have a stronger political fandom,

regardless of which political party they are in and what political ideology they have.

Data also showed some other association between political fandom and socio-

demographic variables. Based on the correlation analysis, people who have high levels of

political fandom are more likely to have young age and experiences of higher education

as well as they tend to live in urban area.

Figure 3.1 Scale development process

22

Figure 3.2 The second-order measurement model

23

Table 3.1 Sample description

Study for EFA Study for CFA

Variable Frequency

(N=180)

Percent

(%)

Frequency

(N=354)

Percent

(%)

Gender

Female 78 43.3 169 47.7

Male

102 56.7 185 52.3

Age (M=35.6, SD=12.2)

20-29 73 40.7 98 27.7

30-39 61 33.8 139 39.3

40-49 20 11.2 52 14.6

50-59 14 8.0 38 10.5

60-69 11 6.3 22 6.3

Over 70

1 1.0 5 1.5

Race

White or Caucasian 135 75 271 76.6

Black or African American 16 8.9 32 9

Hispanic or Latino 13 7.2 22 6.2

Native American or Alaska

Native

2 1.1 0 0

Asian or Asian American 11 6.1 25 7.1

Other

3 1.7 4 1.1

24

Table 3.1 (continued)

Study for EFA Study for CFA

Variable Frequency

(N=180)

Percent

(%)

Frequency

(N=354)

Percent

(%)

Education

Some high school 2 1.1 3 0.8

High school graduate 18 10 36 10.2

Some college 33 18.3 65 18.4

Associate's degree 26 14.4 51 14.4

Bachelor's degree 75 41.7 149 42.1

Master's degree 20 11.1 42 11.9

Professional degree 4 2.2 6 1.7

Doctorate degree

2 1.1 2 0.6

Income

Less than $10,000 7 3.9 18 5.1

$10,000 - $29,999 43 23.9 60 16.9

$30,000 - $49,999 48 26.7 83 24.5

$50,000 - $69,999 35 19.4 72 20.3

$70,000 - $89,999 18 10 58 16.4

More than $90,000 18 10 54 15.3

25

Table 3.2 Selected politicians as participants favorite

Study for EFA Study for CFA

Politician Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)

George W. Bush 5 2.8 23 6.5

George H. W. Bush 2 1.1 4 1.1

Jimmy Carter 5 2.8 9 2.5

Bill Clinton 13 7.2 28 7.9

Hillary Clinton 10 5.6 12 3.4

Ted Cruz 2 1.1 3 0.8

Al Gore 2 1.1 7 2

John Kasich 3 1.7 4 1.1

John Kerry 0 0 2 0.6

Walter Mondale 0 0 1 0.3

John McCain 2 1.1 1 0.3

Robert Mueller 4 2.2 1 0.3

Barack Obama 42 23.3 101 28.5

Mike Pence 0 0 2 0.6

Ronald Reagan 13 7.2 30 8.5

Mitt Romney 0 0 1 0.3

Paul Ryan 3 1.7 5 1.4

Bernie Sanders 39 21.7 41 11.6

Jeff Sessions 0 0 1 0.3

Chuck Schumer 0 0 2 0.6

Rex Tillerson 1 0.6 0 0

Donald Trump 22 12.2 53 15

Elizabeth Warren 3 1.7 11 3.1

Not listed above 9 5 12 3.4

26

Table 3.3 Initial item pool

Expected Dimensions Items

Worship I obsessed by detailed of <politician name>'s life.

I have frequent thoughts about <politician name>, even when I don't want to.

"Following" <politician name> is like daydreaming, takes me away from life's hassles.

I often feel compelled to learn the personal habits of <politician name>.

If I were to meet <politician name> in person, the politician would already somehow know that I am the politician's biggest fan.

Self-awareness as a fan I consider myself to be a huge fan of <politician name>.

Being a fan of <politician name> is very important to me.

My friends or families see me as a fan of <politician name>.

I feel so good when people consider me as a fan of <politician name>.

I consider myself as a committed fan of <politician name>.

Identification When someone criticizes <politician name>, it feels like a personal insult to me.

I consider that the success of <politician name> is my success.

When someone praises <politician name>, it feels like a personal compliment to me.

When a story in the media criticized <politician name>, I would feel embarrassed.

I consider <politician name> to be my soul mate.

Loyalty I would be willing to attend political events related to <politician name> even if the location is far from my current residence.

I would support <politician name> regardless of the result of election.

I would likely recommend <politician name> to my friends and family for voting regardless of their political opinion.

I always say positive things about <politician name> to my friends and family.

I always say positive things about <politician name>'s fan community to my friends and family.

27

Table 3.3 (Continued)

Expected Dimensions Items

Investment I would be willing to spend my time and money to support <politician name>.

I would be willing to purchase and use <politician name> goods, such as badges, t-shirts, cups, flags, or caps.

I would be willing to engage in making <politician name> goods, such as badges, t-shirts, cups, flags, or caps.

I would be willing to use the service or purchase the product from the corporations that support <politician name>.

Playing I enjoy reading memes or watching parody content related to <politician name>.

I enjoy creating and/or using memes or parody content related to <politician name>.

I enjoy sharing the content (including video, news, blog, or micro-blog) about <politician name>.

I enjoy reading news related to <politician name>.

I enjoy sharing news related to <politician name>.

Fan Community engagement

I enjoy talking about <politician name> with other <politician name> 's fans online.

Meeting with a fan of <politician name> is always my pleasure, even though I have no idea about him or her.

I feel comfortable when I meet the fans of <politician name>.

I would be willing to participate in events for fans of <politician name>.

I would be willing to engage in organization of <politician name>’s fans.

When I talk about the fans of <politician name>, I usually say "we" rather than "they."

28

Table 3.4. Exploratory factor analysis of political fandom (seven-factor structure)

Dimensions Factor loading

Worship (Mean=2.86, SD=1.57)

WO1: I obsessed by detailed of <politician name>'s life. 0.933

WO2: I have frequent thoughts about <politician name>, even when I don't want to. 0.792

WO3: "Following" <politician name> is like daydreaming, takes me away from life's hassles. 0.885

WO4: I often feel compelled to learn the personal habits of <politician name>. 0.738

WO5: If I were to meet <politician name> in person, the politician would already somehow know that I am the politician's biggest fan.

0.737

Self-awareness as a fan (Mean=4.42, SD=1.53)

I consider myself to be a huge fan of <politician name>. eliminated

SA1: Being a fan of <politician name> is very important to me. 0.774

SA2: My friends or families see me as a fan of <politician name>. 0.762

SA3: I feel so good when people consider me as a fan of <politician name>. 0.878

SA4: I consider myself as a committed fan of <politician name>. 0.629

Identification (Mean=3.67, SD=1.66)

ID1: When someone criticizes <politician name>, it feels like a personal insult to me. 0.528

ID2: I consider that the success of <politician name> is my success. 0.458

When someone praises <politician name>, it feels like a personal compliment to me. eliminated

ID3: When a story in the media criticized <politician name>, I would feel embarrassed. 0.631

I consider <politician name> to be my soul mate. eliminated

29

Table 3.4. (Continued)

Dimensions Factor loading

Loyalty (Mean=5.37, SD=1.19)

I would be willing to attend political events related to <politician name> even if the location is far from my current residence.

eliminated

LO1: I would support <politician name> regardless of the result of election. 0.699

LO2: I would likely recommend <politician name> to my friends and family for voting regardless of their political opinion.

0.762

LO3: I always say positive things about <politician name> to my friends and family. 0.878

LO4: I always say positive things about <politician name>'s fan community to my friends and family. 0.629

Investment (Mean=4.58, SD=1.55)

I would be willing to spend my time and money to support <politician name>. eliminated

IV1: I would be willing to purchase and use <politician name> goods, such as badges, t-shirts, cups, flags, or caps. 0.685

IV2: I would be willing to engage in making <politician name> goods, such as badges, t-shirts, cups, flags, or caps. 0.721

IV3: I would be willing to use the service or purchase the product from the corporations that support <politician name>. 0.584

Playing (Mean=4.24, SD=1.30)

PL1: I enjoy reading memes or watching parody content related to <politician name>. 0.573

PL2: I enjoy creating and/or using memes or parody content related to <politician name>. 0.778

PL3: I enjoy sharing the content (including video, news, blog, or micro-blog) about <politician name>. 0.403

I enjoy reading news related to <politician name>. eliminated

I enjoy sharing news related to <politician name>. eliminated

30

Table 3.4. (Continued)

Dimensions Factor loading

Fan-community engagement (Mean=4.29, SD=1.53)

FE1: I enjoy talking about <politician name> with other <politician name> 's fans online. 0.686

FE2: Meeting with a fan of <politician name> is always my pleasure, even though I have no idea about him or

her.

0.600

FE3: I feel comfortable when I meet the fans of <politician name>. 0.568

FE4: I would be willing to participate in events for fans of <politician name>. 0.941

FE5: I would be willing to engage in organization of <politician name>’s fans. 1.008

FE6: When I talk about the fans of <politician name>, I usually say "we" rather than "they."

0.838

31

Table 3.5 Statics for exploratory factor analysis

Factor No. of

items

Eigenvalue % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Worship 5 7.638 45.184 45.184 .928

Self-awareness as a fan 4 9.978 3.095 48.279 .922

Identification 3 7.470 1.402 49.681 .856

Loyalty 4 6.323 4.030 53.711 .860

Investment 3 7.093 2.435 56.146 .868

Playing 3 5.687 2.011 58.157 .714

Community

engagement 6 10.475 12.103 70.260 .927

32

Table 3.6 Confirmatory factor analysis results

Model 2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Seven-factor model 705.878*** 265 .936 .927 .069 .050

Note. CFI: Comparative Fit Index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error

of Approximation; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

33

Table 3.7 The modified factor model of political fandom

Factor CR AVE Items Factor

Loading

Worship .926 .759 Obsession with politicians’ life 0.854

The frequency of thoughts about an object of fandom 0.883

Learning about politicians 0.895

My celebrity politician can recognize me as a fan 0.852

Self-awareness .916 .732 Awareness of myself as a fan of my celebrity politician 0.832

Friends aware me as a celebrity politician’ fan 0.852

Having a good feeling of being a fan of a celebrity politician 0.893

Aware of myself as a committed fan of a celebrity politician 0.845

Identification .885 .719 Identifying insulted a celebrity politician with myself 0.844

Identifying a celebrity politician’s success with mine 0.857

Identifying praised a celebrity politician with myself 0.843

Loyalty .826 .615 Support my celebrity politician regardless of the result of an election 0.678

Recommend my celebrity politician to others 0.830

Telling positive things about my celebrity politician 0.834

Note. CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted

34

Table 3.7 (continued)

Factor CR AVE Items Factor

Loading

Investment .855 .665 Purchase and use of celebrity politician goods 0.860

Engagement in making celebrity politician goods 0.847

Support company that supports my celebrity politician 0.733

Play .783 .555 Enjoyment of reading memes and parodies about my celebrity politician 0.555

Enjoyment of creating meme about my celebrity politician 0.755

Enjoyment of sharing content about my celebrity politician 0.887

Fan Community

Engagement

.912 .676 Engagement in a celebrity politician’s online fan-group 0.805

Engagement in celebrity politician’s other fans 0.859

Engagement in celebrity politician’s groups of fans 0.773

Participation in celebrity politician’s fan organizations 0.848

Identification with celebrity politician’s fan-groups 0.823

Note. CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted

35

Table 3.8 The discriminant validity index summary for the construct

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Worship 0.871

2. Self-awareness 0.605 0.856

3. Identification 0.734 0.671 0.848

4. Loyalty 0.189 0.492 0.311 0.784

5. Investment 0.487 0.610 0.530 0.501 0.815

6. Playing 0.526 0.497 0.467 0.388 0.471 0.745

7. Engagement 0.632 0.687 0.657 0.466 0.662 0.633 0.822

Note. The diagonal values (in bold) is Construct Reliability (the square root of AVE); All

variables significantly correlated with others (p < .001)

36

Table 3.9 Correlations of political fandom and other variables

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Political Fandom -

2. Perceptions of politician .665*** -

3. Political Efficacy .367** .173** -

4. Partisanship .059 -.058 .027 -

5. Intensity of Partisanship .210** .082 .187** .139** -

6. Self-reported political

ideology .027 -.089 .015 .867** .041 -

7. Intensity of ideology (self-

reported) .091 -.037 .173** .080 .650** .176** -

8. Evaluated political ideology .036 -.065 .071 .574** .077 .637** .203** -

9. Intensity of ideology

(evaluated) -.071 -.233** .259** .168** .203** .224** .379** .364** -

10. Age -.176** -187** .134* -.114* .052 -.157** .087 -.071 .092 -

11. Education .132* .048 .089 .032 .199** .068 .122* .035 .044 -.075 -

12. Family income -.018 .005 .022 -.100 .058 -.138** .023 -.124* -.038 .014 .256** -

13. Region -.191** -.165** -.051 -.183** -.031 -.206** -.025 -.089 .036 .140** -.178** .009

Note. *p < .05, ** p< .01, ***p<.001

37

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

To contribute to the understanding of individuals’ political perceptions and

behaviors in terms of relationship with politicians, in the present study, the researcher

proposed a measurement scale based on the results of three analyses (conceptualization

and item pool generation, item refinement through exploratory factor analysis, and latent

structure analysis and validity assessment). By summarizing the literature regarding

fandom studies in sports, culture, and entertainment studies, the researcher initially made

42 questions. The analyses’ results showed that these 42 questions were narrowed down

to 25 through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In addition,

the data confirmed that the factor model of political fandom includes seven dimensions

conceptually made from a literature review.

4.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Numerous news articles in many countries expressed worry about political fans as

biased activists who attempt to pressure political campaigns, governments, or media

organizations. As an extremely active group of supporters, fans are very important

players in political campaigns, especially in shaping public opinion. However, little is

known about who the fans of politicians are and what they do. To address this gap in the

literature, this study reveals how political fandom can be categorized and measured in

terms of lay people’s perceptions and behaviors. By covering the relationships between

the public and politicians, the present study suggests seven factors of political fandom,

38

reflecting intensity-levels of individual affection or support for individual politicians.

The current research’s theoretical implications are three-fold. First, the present

research provides a starting point for extending political communication studies of

political perceptions and behaviors. Several studies in this paper indicated that people

have unique political perceptions of individual politicians and distinctive ways of

supporting politicians. The study aimed to improve understanding of how lay people’s

engagement in politics would help scholars understand people’s political behaviors and

perceptions. This study suggests that personal affections and support can exist

independent of partisanship or other political traits. In other words, in this study, the

researcher defined the concept of political fandom as the independent construct with the

factor model for future studies that aim to understand the psychological process of

individuals’ political support from various viewpoints. Because political candidates are

all delegates from parties or regions, previous studies examined the relationship between

parties and individuals, not direct relationships between individual politicians and lay

people. However, in this study, the author has focused on psychological constructs based

on an individual’s political support as a fan of the politician. The author developed the

construct and scale of political fandom by applying unfamiliar variables in political

communication or political science studies (i.e., worship, identification, and loyalty).

Second, by proposing the integrated conceptualization of political fandom, this

study can guide future research on political fandom. The factor model of political fandom

incorporates diverse theories from political science, communication, entertainment, and

sports research. Scholars in various fields have attempted to explain fans and their

activities from various viewpoints corresponding to their fields. However, no agreement

39

exists about what political fandom is and who the fans of politicians are because the

research area of political fandom is in its initial stage. The researcher explored the

meaning of fandom in politics and attempted to build the foundation of political fandom

studies. Based on reviews of the literature and conceptualization, this paper contributes

insights into the potential role of political fandom in various fields.

Specifically, the worship dimension can suggest that the political fandom scale

indicates a strong bond between politicians and fans (McCutcheon, Lange, & Houran,

2002). Loyalty denotes that fans’ affiliation with politicians is a meaningful factor of the

political fandom construct (Biscaia et al., 2013). Investment shows that the concept of

political fandom also includes the concept of consumer behaviors (Van Zoonen, 2004).

Political fandom also can play an important role in fans’ consumer behaviors and

political activities. Playing reveals that fans do not only engage in elections or political

decision-making processes as political supporters; they also tend to pursue enjoyment in

their fan activities by sharing and creating memes and parodic content online (Wilson,

2011). Last, fan community engagement is also noteworthy because it demonstrates that

researchers should consider fans’ group activities a salient aspect of political fandom

(Dean, 2017). Originally, fandom was a term for a massive number of fans’ collective

actions related to the admired figure and common perceptions of that figure. The results

of this study also show that engagement of fans in the fan community is a crucial part of

fandom activities.

Third, development of the scale of political fandom is this study’s primary

contribution to theory. Future studies can use the suggested factor model to capture

political fandom. The scale will be applicable in political science and communication

40

studies that aim to understand the relationship between the public’s political decision-

making process and perceptions of politicians. Because the factor model of political

fandom is also an applicable predictor of individuals’ behaviors toward politicians,

researchers can apply this exploratory study’s results to understand a variety of

phenomena in marketing, psychology, politics, communication, and strategic

communication research. For example, political fandom can be the key to elucidating

particular communicative actions of political supporters, especially problematic actions

such as fake news sharing to support their politicians. Many news articles warned about

political fans giving politicians excessive and/or blind support without considering the

results of such support. The factor model of political fandom can help others examine it

as a very strong emotional force behind individuals’ political behaviors

To sum up, by summarizing the literature on political fandom and devising the

scale to measure the concept, the author concludes that political fandom should be

considered as partisanship or political ideology in research on individuals’ political

perceptions and behaviors.

4.2 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

In a practical sense, the political fandom measurement is helpful to practitioners

in several ways. First, political marketers, public relations managers, and communication

managers of political campaigns can use the data collected through the political fandom

scale to manage their media planning. Practitioners can segment the public based on the

degree of political fandom. They can then build more efficient public relations campaigns

or advertising plans that have more precise targets. Practitioners also can generate

customized media messages for each group (i.e., a group of huge fans, a group of

41

moderate fans, or a group of non-fans). For example, political fandom can help distribute

contents for politicians in the early stages of political campaigns’ content sharing.

Political fans are active communicators who tend to share and seek political information

regarding politicians based on this study. Thus, it is acceptable expectation that fans of

politicians not only play a role in distributing contents that are shared by a political party

or a politician, but in shaping positive public opinion regarding those contents. Political

marketers’ developing communication strategies will be facilitated by using this

understanding of the characteristics of political fans as active audiences.

Second, the understanding of political fandom contributes to politicians’ and

governments’ risk and crisis management. Fans of politicians are very enthusiastic

supporters who attempt to sway public opinion to create a more advantageous

environment for their politicians. Thus, politicians and governments should manage their

fans because they are valuable influencers. Activist fans, however, can benefit or harm

their preferred politicians. On one hand, fans are loyal supporters who can play important

roles during politicians’ crises. The concepts of worship and loyalty in the construct of

political fandom show that fans support and believe their politicians even when public

opinion about those politicians is not favorable. Therefore, fans may be the crucial

stakeholders for politicians in terms of crisis management. On the other hand, politicians

should manage their fans carefully because fans may also become their worst nemeses

when they change their minds and turn against their preferred politicians.

Ironically, fans should be considered a potential risk. Fans have thorough

knowledge about politicians based on numerous communication experiences with those

politicians (or politicians’ aides). Because fans hold a high level of engagement in

42

political campaigns and in the activities of politicians as activists who have extensive

influence on public opinion regarding politicians, fans can play an important role in

forming negative or positive public views of politicians. In other words, fans may change

to anti-fans who seek to harm politicians in particular situations. For instance, if a

politician or his/her campaign has a moral hazard problem and it is unveiled, political

fans might change from fans to anti-fans. The factor model of political fandom offers

practitioners a measurement of fans’ perceptions and activities that can help them

forecast fans’ future actions.

Finally, this study allows researchers to measure individuals’ activities related to

fan communities. Fans’ collective actions did not draw attention from researchers and

practitioners even though fan communities’ strong bonds and collectivism based on

fanship is one of the crucial points for understanding political fandom. Thus, by using the

political fandom scale, practitioners can better understand political fandom, including

fans’ engagement in fan communities that would help political practitioners manage

groups of supporters when they plan election gatherings and political campaigns for other

reasons.

4.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION

Despite the given interesting implications, this study has several limitations. Some

politicians who were used in the data collections already retired. Although this fact would

not make a significant difference, it should be considered in the interpretation of this

study’s results. Online sampling with MTurk is another limitation of this study. The

present study is not sample-sensitive, but the results are not completely generalizable. In

addition, this study accepted modest standards to evaluate model fits of the factor model

43

when confirmatory factor analysis was applied. The specific statistical standards can vary

by researcher. However, many scale development studies employ very restrictive

standards for model fits of confirmatory factor analysis. It would be better for future

researchers to attempt to provide the political fandom model that has better model fits.

As an explorative study developing a multiple-item scale to measure political

fandom, this study serves as a starting point for future political fandom studies and

suggests noteworthy future research topics. First, in the future, a more comprehensive

study is needed to explain the interaction between celebrity politicians and political fans.

Previous studies pointed out that politicians plan strategic communications to gain

popularity bases like political fans. Therefore, future researchers can explore the

relationship between politicians’ applications of political fandom to their political

campaigns and political fans’ reactions. Second, the factor model of political fandom can

explain diverse aspects of political fandom, but the construct of political fandom, of

course, could be more refined through further research. Therefore, future researchers may

find other dimensions of political fandom and remove dimensions in the model suggested

in this study. Third, the political fandom scale can extend to other countries even though

this study was conducted in the U.S. because political fandom has been generally

reported by media around the world. Further research should investigate political fandom

in other countries based on various samples.

Political fandom is not easy to define. Even the researcher cannot ensure that this scale of

fandom can measure whole aspects of political fandom because the concept of political

fandom includes several theories across diverse political and communication-related

44

fields. To understand the relationship between politicians and lay people, political

fandom research needs to be conducted using an interdisciplinary approach.

45

REFERENCES

Al Ganideh, S. F., & Good, L. K. (2015). Cheering for Spanish clubs: Team identification

and fandom of foreign soccer clubs (the case of Arab fans). International Journal

of Sport Psychology, 46(4), 348-368.

American National Election Studies (2016). 2016 Time Series Study. Retrieve from

http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/download/datacenter_all_NoData.php

American National Election Studies. 2005. American National Election Studies

Cumulative Data File: 2000–2016. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Political Studies,

University of Michigan.

Appelman, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and

validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,

93(1), 59-79.

Bae, H.-J. (2017, May 21). Moon's personality captivates fans. The Korea Herald.

Retrieved from http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170521000221

Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? the changing

foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-

731.

Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Rosado, A. F., Ross, S. D., & Maroco, J. (2013). Sport

sponsorship: The relationship between team loyalty, sponsorship awareness,

attitude toward the sponsor, and purchase intentions. Journal of Sport

Management, 27(4), 288-302.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1991). The positive social and self concept

consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues,

15(2), 115-127. doi:10.1177/019372359101500202

Bronstein, J. (2013). Like me! Analyzing the 2012 presidential candidates’ Facebook

pages. Online Information Review, 37(2), 173-192.

Brough, M. M., & Shresthova, S. (2011). Fandom meets activism: Rethinking civic and

political participation. Transformative Works and sCultures, 10.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3983/twc.2012.0303

Campbell, R., & Cowley, P. (2014). What voters want: reactions to candidate

characteristics in a survey experiment. Political Studies, 62(4), 745-765.

doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12048

46

Canovan, M. (1999) Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy.

Political Studies, 47(1), 2–16.

Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., & Zhang,

Y. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news

programming. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 201-219.

Coleman, N. (2017, June 7). Obama and Trudeau bring the bromance back. CNN.

Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/americas/obama-trudeau-

bromance-trnd/index.html

De Backer, C. J. S. (2012). Blinded by the starlight: An evolutionary framework for

studying celebrity culture and fandom. Review of General Psychology, 16(2),

144-151.

Dean, J. (2017). Politicising fandom. British Journal of Politics & International

Relations, 19(2), 408-424. doi:10.1177/1369148117701754

Dimitrova, D. V., & Bystrom, D. (2013). The effects of social media on political

participation and candidate image evaluations in the 2012 Iowa caucuses.

American Behavioral Scientist, 57(11), 1568-1583.

Druckman, J. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon

debate revisited. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 559-571.

Dwyer, B., Mudrick, M., Greenhalgh, G. P., LeCrom, C. W., & Drayer, J. (2015). The tie

that blinds? Developing and validating a scale to measure emotional attachment to

a sport team. Sport Management Review, 18(4), 570-582.

Erikson, E. (2008). "Hillary is my Friend": MySpace and political fandom. Rocky

Mountain Communication Review, 5(1), 3-16.

Ferrari, E. (2017). Fake accounts, real activism: Political faking and user-generated satire

as activist intervention. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444817731918

Fiske, J. (1992). The cultural economy of fandom. In L. A. Lewis (Ed.), The Adoring

Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (pp. 30-49). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Groenendyk, E. (2016). The anxious and ambivalent partisan: The effect of incidental

anxiety on partisan motivated recall and ambivalence. Public Opinion Quarterly,

80(2), 460-479.

Guzmán, F., Paswan, A. K., & Van Steenburg, E. (2015). Self-referencing and political

candidate brands: A Congruency Perspective. Journal of Political Marketing,

14(1-2), 175-199. doi:10.1080/15377857.2014.990837

Hafner, J. (2018, May 2). Trump voters think he's lying about Stormy Daniels. And no,

they don't really care. USA Today. Retrieved from

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/02/trump-voters-think-

47

hes-lying-stormy-daniels-and-no-they-dont-really-care/555985002/

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data

analysis (7th Edition). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Highfield, T., Harrington, S., & Bruns, A. (2013). Twitter as a technology for audiencing

and fandom. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 315-339.

doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.756053

Hill, J. (2016, July 2). Election Escapism: Fan Fiction For The 2016 Candidates. National

Public Radio. Retrieved from

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/02/484407962/election-escapism-fan-fiction-for-

the-2016-candidates

Hunt, N. (2003). The importance of trivia: Ownership, exclusion and authority in science

fiction fandom In M. Jancovich (Ed.), Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural

Politics of Oppositional Tastes (pp. 185-201). Manchester, UK: Manchester

University Press.

Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. Washington Quarterly, 23(1),

215-228.

Inglehart, R. (2015). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among

Western publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity

perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.

Jang, S. M., & Kim, J. K. (2018). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news

regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80,

295-302. doi:https://doi.org/

Keaton, S. A., & Gearhart, C. C. (2014). Identity formation, identity strength, and self-

categorization as predictors of affective and psychological outcomes.

Communication & Sport, 2(4), 363-385.

Kim, J. N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A

situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120-149.

Kim, M.-S., & Kim, H.-M. (2017). The effect of online fan community attributes on the

loyalty and cooperation of fan community members: The moderating role of

connect hours. Computers in Human Behavior, 68(Supplement C), 232-243.

Kim, H.-J., & Won, Y.-J. (2002). Evolution of fandom and it’s politics. Korean Journal

of Journalism & Communication Studies, 46(2), 253-278.

Koo, S-W (2017, June 21). Moonppa: A Troubled Start for the moon Jae-in presidency.

Korea Expose. Retrieved from https://www.koreaexpose.com/moonppa-moon-

jae-in-presidency-trouble/

48

Lee, E.-J. (2013). Effectiveness of Politicians' Soft Campaign on Twitter Versus TV:

Cognitive and Experiential Routes. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 953-974.

doi:10.1111/jcom.12049

Lee, S. Y., Kim, H. M., Chu, K., & Seo, J. (2013). Fandom as a prosumer: Study on

information behavior of fandom. Journal of Digital Convergence, 11(12), 747-

759.

Lemert, J. B., Wanta, W., & Lee, T. T. (1999). Party identification and negative

advertising in a U.S. Senate election. Journal of Communication, 49(2), 123-134.

doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02797.x

Lindzon, J. (2017, July 1). How Trump Made Justin Trudeau a Global Superstar. Politico

Magazine. Retrieved from

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/01/donald-trump-justin-

trudeau-world-leader-215323

Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (2002). Talk on television: Audience participation and public

debate. New York, NY: Routledge.

Luo, X. (2017). Collective mass media bias, social media, and non-partisans. Economics

Letters, 156(Supplement C), 78-81.

Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L. E., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. (2006). Extreme celebrity

worship, fantasy proneness and dissociation: Developing the measurement and

understanding of celebrity worship within a clinical personality context.

Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 273-283.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.004

McCudden, M. L. (2011). Degrees of fandom: authenticity & hierarchy in the age of

media convergence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas,

Lawrence.

McCutcheon, L. E., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2002). Conceptualization and measurement

of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 67-87.

McLaughlin, B., McLeod, D. M., Davis, C., Perryman, M., & Mun, K. (2017). Elite cues,

news coverage, and partisan support for compromise. Journalism & Mass

Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 862-882.

Mihailidis, P., & Viotty, S. (2017). Spreadable Spectacle in Digital Culture: Civic

Expression, Fake News, and the Role of Media Literacies in “Post-Fact” Society.

American Behavioral Scientist, 61(4), 441-454.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close

relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions

to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12, 149–168.

Miller, J., & De Haes, T. (2015, June 10). Candidate tribute songs: The good, the bad,

and the ugly. CBS News. Retrieved from

49

https://www.cbsnews.com/media/candidate-tribute-songs-the-good-the-bad-and-

the-ugly/

Morelli, V (2018, March 23). In South Korea, a presidential collectible for your wrist.

The New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/style/watches-moon-jae-in-south-

korea.html

Morin, D. T., Ivory, J. D., & Tubbs, M. (2012). Celebrity and politics: Effects of endorser

credibility and sex on voter attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. Social Science

Journal, 49(4), 413-420. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2012.09.011

Parikh, K. H. (2012). Political fandom in the age of social media: Case study of Barack

Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign (Unpublished MSc thesis), London School

of Economics and Political Science, London.

Pearson, R. (2010). Fandom in the Digital Era. Popular Communication, 8(1), 84-95.

Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). Fanship and fandom: Comparisons between

sport and non-sport fans. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33(2), 176-193.

Sandvoss, C. (2005) Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Sandvoss, C. (2012). Enthusiasm, trust and its erosion in mediated politics: On fans of

Obama and the Liberal Democrats. European Journal of Communication, 27(1),

68-81.

Schiffer, A. J. (2017). Debates and partisan enthusiasm before the 2012 republican

primaries. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47(2), 293-310.

Song, H., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2017). Dynamic spirals put to test: An agent-based

model of reinforcing spirals between selective exposure, interpersonal networks,

and attitude polarization. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 256-281.

Stevens, C. S. (2010). You are what you buy: Postmodern consumption and fandom of

Japanese popular culture. Japanese Studies, 30(2), 199-214.

doi:10.1080/10371397.2010.497578

Stever, G. S. (2009). Parasocial and social interaction with celebrities: Classification of

media fans. Journal of Media Psychology, 14(3), 1-39.

Street, J. (2004). Celebrity Politicians: Popular Culture and Political Representation. The

British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 6(4), 435-452.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00149.x

Sunstein, C. R. (2018). # Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sutton, W. A., McDonald, M. A., Milne, G. R., & Cimperman, J. (1997). Creating and

fostering fan identification in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6,

50

15-22.

Takens, J., Kleinnijenhuis, J., Van Hoof, A., & Van Atteveldt, W. (2015). Party Leaders

in the Media and Voting Behavior: Priming Rather Than Learning or Projection.

Political Communication, 32(2), 249-267. doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.944319

Tsiotsou, R. H. (2015). The role of social and parasocial relationships on social

networking sites loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior, 48(Supplement C), 401-

414.

Valenzuela, S., Correa, T., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017). Ties, likes, and tweets: Using

strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across

Facebook and twitter use. Political Communication, 1-18.

Van Zoonen, L. (2004). Imagining the fan democracy. European Journal of

Communication, 19(1), 39-52.

Wakefield, L. T., & Bennett, G. (2017). Sports fan experience: Electronic word-of-mouth

in ephemeral social media. Sport Management Review.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.06.003

Wann, D. L. (2002). Preliminary validation of a measure for assessing identification as a

sport fan: The Sport Fandom Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport

Management, 3(2), 103-115.

Warner, B. R., & Banwart, M. C. (2016). A Multifactor approach to candidate image.

Communication Studies, 67(3), 259-279.

Webster, S. W., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective

polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621-647.

Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety

moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation.

Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719.

Wilson, J. (2011). Playing with politics: Political fans and Twitter faking in post-

broadcast democracy. Convergence, 17(4), 445-461.

Wolin, S. S. (2016). Politics and vision: Continuity and innovation in Western political

thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Zhu, Q., Skoric, M., & Shen, F. (2017). I shield myself from thee: selective avoidance on

social media during political protests. Political Communication, 34(1), 112-131.

51

APPENDIX A

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68